Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 206 posts

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#141

Post by MichaelBurge »

pessimizer wrote: post #81
kbenson wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have something specific to say regarding Peter Thiel's specific contribution to Facebook's current or past stance on privacy, I think you are being far too alarmist with an entirely unsupported position. For example, it's entirely possible that Peter Thiel is part of a losing faction of the board that values more privacy, and has actually been a force for the better with regard to privacy at Facebook? Is t…

You're intensely equivocating here. The moral calculus of renouncing your massive profit-making association with a company that you serve on the board of if it chooses to do things that you find morally unacceptable is trivial, and entirely different than when you're a citizen of a country that you serve in the legislature of that decides to do things that you find morally unacceptable. If you're on the losing factio…

Poisoning the water supply is different because the water supply is managed by the local government, and because it's a crime. These add a personal risk to the decision, which your argument is indirectly relying on when you assume it's obviously a bad thing.

You should choose an example that wouldn't lead the executives being personally attacked by prosecutors:

* An oil spill killing ocean wildlife and damaging the look of a beautiful beach.

* A soda company deciding whether to put 10% more sugar in their sodas to increase sales, even though they know its likely to kill statistical thousands of people.

* A manufacturing company moving to China, pressuring local workers into working long hours in poor working conditions and polluting their country.

I believe none of these is a crime, and I wouldn't argue that someone who voted against these should resign from the board rather than help execute on a decision they oppose.

Do you have a better example?

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#142

Post by CPLX »

serge2k wrote: post #12
blintz wrote: post #6

Peter Thiel is all for radical freedom and libertarianism as long as the free speech that he protects isn't critical of himself. He vehemently defended his friend's right to yell "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of AIDS!" outside an instructor's residence. As he explains in his book, "His demonstration directly challenged one of the most fundamental taboos: To suggest a correlation between homosexual acts and AIDS impli…

> long as the free speech that he protects isn't critical of himself > He vehemently defended his friend's right to yell "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of AIDS!" He's gay. This all started because Gawker outed him years ago.

So was the guy yelling in that story. Both of them are very powerful people in the valley today. Google it, it's hardly a secret.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#143

Post by kbenson »

pessimizer wrote: post #81
kbenson wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have something specific to say regarding Peter Thiel's specific contribution to Facebook's current or past stance on privacy, I think you are being far too alarmist with an entirely unsupported position. For example, it's entirely possible that Peter Thiel is part of a losing faction of the board that values more privacy, and has actually been a force for the better with regard to privacy at Facebook? Is t…

You're intensely equivocating here. The moral calculus of renouncing your massive profit-making association with a company that you serve on the board of if it chooses to do things that you find morally unacceptable is trivial, and entirely different than when you're a citizen of a country that you serve in the legislature of that decides to do things that you find morally unacceptable. If you're on the losing factio…

> You're intensely equivocating here.

How so? I think I'm being very clear. If you make assertions, you should support them. I do not take at face value that being on the board of Facebook precludes you from caring about privacy. If there is specific evidence as to his actions apart from that, it should be presented. None was.

> The moral calculus of renouncing your massive profit-making association with a company that you serve on the board of if it chooses to do things that you find morally unacceptable is trivial

It is only trivial in the renouncement is morally unambiguous, it is not trivially acceptable that the opposite is true. I submit that it's entirely possible to remain in a position of some power of an organization that is working counter to what you believe is right. In the simplest case, to change that organization. To reject that would be reject the core tenets of democracy, which requires you to participate in a system you may find has resulted in morally reprehensible actions to bring about change and prevent future occurrences of those actions. A board of directors is fundamentally a very democratic form of governance (in that like the United States, the representatives are often elected so it is democratic in its republicness).

> If you're on the losing faction on a corporate board that decides that the best option is to poison the city water supply, and your mournfully cash the checks, you are just as guilty as the winning faction.

But that's not what's going on here. The equivalent here would be if there was a long standing plan to legally dump poison into the water. Feel free to renounce your board membership. The people that are poisoned in the future will feel so much better that you took an ineffectual moral stand rather than alternate action that might have yielded real change.

There is no difference in this than legislative powers. Money and power are interchangeable, to a degree. Should our legislators resign over voted directions of government they do not agree with? They are, be nature of their positions, benefiting from the increase in power and influence the decision may grant them if it increases the standing of the US (but at the cost of the world as a whole).

So, the be absolutely clear, I believe there exists the possibility to have non-controlling power in an organization that you feel is taking morally reprehensible actions, and believe that the most beneficial action to address this is to continue with your position and work to change the organization. To assert Peter Thiel is exhibiting "sheer cynical audacity" and hope that people aren't "dumb enough to fall for this" purely by his association with the board of Facebook without addressing this is not worthy of taking seriously.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#144

Post by shanusmagnus »

solipsism wrote: post #135
shanusmagnus wrote: post #42

Implying that objections to Trump's narcissism and probable sociopathy amount to "culture war" is a staggering re-framing of reality. That combined with the gay-conservative-Christian thing suggest that the amount of cognitive dissonance Thiel can endure must truly be Olympic calibre.

I keep seeing "cognitive dissonance" used in this way, and I think it's incorrect. Cognitive dissonance is not holding opposing views simultaneously. It's having a anxiety because of it. Although your usage could be taken in that way, I'd wonder why you think he experiences any cognitive dissonance at all.

The dissonance construct is not only about anxiety; it's about structural inconsistency that manifests in a variety of ways, the best known of which is probably anxiety. It's actually a very deep idea that goes to the heart of representation, decision making, and cognition more generally.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#146

Post by snsr »

kbenson wrote: post #62
Analemma_ wrote: post #17

The balls on this guy. The sheer cynical audacity of trying to market yourself as a "defender of privacy" when you serve on the board of a company so antithetical to privacy that they're under federal supervision for twenty years [1] is breathtaking. Please tell me no one on Hacker News is dumb enough to fall for this. My Google-fu is failing me on the exact link (can someone help?), but Marc Andreessen once penned s…

Unless you have something specific to say regarding Peter Thiel's specific contribution to Facebook's current or past stance on privacy, I think you are being far too alarmist with an entirely unsupported position. For example, it's entirely possible that Peter Thiel is part of a losing faction of the board that values more privacy, and has actually been a force for the better with regard to privacy at Facebook? Is t…

> I have no evidence as to how Peter Thiel truly feels about privacy in general

Thiel founded Palantir.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#148

Post by hsod »

incogitomode wrote: post #91
shklnrj wrote: post #38

I am actually in favour of Peter Thiel. What Gawker did was illegal and hence it is facing this backlash by the LAW. Many people committed suicides because of the way Gawker brought their private life in public. http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8992155/gawker-outing-gay-peopl... As far as he being the investor in Facebook which uses your data to advertise to you - You actually agree to Facebook's terms when you sign up f…

Except that the incident was found to be newsworthy and not illegal in two previous cases, once in federal court and another attempt in Florida state court [1]. Shopping for a favorable venue, and convincing one jury in a civil case does not make for a very compelling argument of "illegality." [1] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan-v...

Those are both decisions regarding preliminary injunctions, so your claim that they were found "not illegal" is erroneous. It's explained pretty clearly in the short paragraphs you linked to.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#149

Post by blintz »

remarkEon wrote: post #138
blintz wrote: post #6

Peter Thiel is all for radical freedom and libertarianism as long as the free speech that he protects isn't critical of himself. He vehemently defended his friend's right to yell "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of AIDS!" outside an instructor's residence. As he explains in his book, "His demonstration directly challenged one of the most fundamental taboos: To suggest a correlation between homosexual acts and AIDS impli…

Forgive me if I missed it, but has Gawker been "critical" of Thiel in the traditional sense? I'm tracking that they outed him - not that they've been publishing anti-Thiel business editorials - and that they published a sex tape without the permission of those who made it. It appears that we're starting to conflate protected free speech with invasions of privacy. It's not immediately clear that shouting "Faggot! Fagg…

If being homosexual is not societally acceptable, or carries a stigma (as it did at the time, as evidenced by Thiel's own criticism of it as an unhealthy "lifestyle"), then isn't yelling "Faggot!" at someone rather privacy-invading? As Thiel would himself know from Gawker's outing of him?

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#150

Post by tomjen3 »

zorpner wrote: post #37

The fact that Thiel is still involved with Y Combinator should tell you everything you need to know about the disingenuity of their "commitment" to equality and diversity.

Yeah ycombinator should really improve their diversity by kicking out gay people.
Post reply on HN